Did Paul Commit The Appeal To Nature Fallacy?

Did Paul commit The Appeal To Nature fallacy when he talked
about homosexuality in Romans 1? Seems like his reasoning there for thinking
it's sinful is because it goes against nature.

“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable
passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are
contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women
and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless
acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And
since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased
mind to do what ought not to be done.” – Romans 1:26-28

But something isn't bad simply because its unnatural.
Neither is something good simply because it's natural. Did Paul commit The
Appeal To Nature Fallacy? If he did, then The Bible is not inerrant.

Paul’s Argument Is
Teleological

I think what Paul is getting at here is that homosexuality
is wrong because it goes against the intended design of the human body.

The Bible teaches that God's design for human sexuality was
for intercourse to occur between a man and a woman within the confines of
marriage. Any sexual activity that isn't between a married man and the woman
whom he married is sinful in the sight of God be it homosexuality, masturbation
(with or without pornography), pre-marital sex or orgies.

"That is why a man leaves his father and mother and
is united to his wife, and they become one flesh." - Genesis 2:5

"Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage
bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually
immoral." - Hebrews 13:4

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit
the kingdom of God?
Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy,
nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom
of God. And such were
some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” – 1
Corinthians 6:9-11

"We also know that the law is made not for the
righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy
and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,
for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders
and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound
doctrine." - 1 Timothy 1:9-11

Paul’s argument is teleological; what God’s purpose was for
human sexuality. Homosexuality goes against God’s intentions for human
sexuality. As cliché as it sounds, He made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. He
intended for sex to be only between a husband and wife. Not between boyfriend
and girlfriend. Not between boyfriend and boyfriend or girlfriend and
girlfriend. Not between boyfriend, girlfriend, and her sister. Not even between
husband and husband or wife and wife. But between husband and wife. That was
God’s intention for sex between 2 humans.

Moreover, just looking at the
design of our sexual organs would hint that homosexual behavior goes against
what it was made to do. A tire wasn’t designed to be used as a plate. Shoes
were not designed to be flower pots. In a similar way, sex was not designed to
be between a man and another man.

Did Paul Commit The Appeal To Nature Fallacy? No. He wasn’t
saying homosexuality was a sin because it didn’t occur in nature or because it
was unusual. He said it was a sin because it defied the natural order (i.e
God’s plan).

On The Christian
Worldview, All Morality Is Judged By God’s Character and Commands

Moreover, all morality is judged by God’s character and
commands. Something is morally right or wrong not on whether it’s found within
nature or not, but whether it’s in accord with the character of God and ergo
the commands of God. Often times Christian Apologists (myself included) will
argue for God’s existence on this very premise. If God does not exist, there is
no ontological foundation for objective morality. And yet, we all know that
certain things are right and wrong, that objective morality does exist. But in
that case, it follows by modus tollens reasoning that God exists. I go into
this argument in great detail in my upcoming book Inference To The One True God: Why
I Believe In Jesus Instead Of Other Gods.

As a Christian, it’s highly unlikely that Paul would try to
find a source outside of God for determining whether something was right or
wrong.

Conclusion

Paul wasn’t committing a logical fallacy. He was just being
a good Christian; acknowledging that anything that goes against God’s creative
order is sinful.